Well the Telcos will soon be able to Lie about what they are doing and this kind of thing will all go away, won't it?posted by Meccabilly at 10:47 AM on May 17, 2006

"AT&T was turned down by a federal judge Tuesday in its 11th-hour attempt to bar the public from a San Francisco court hearing today about documents that allegedly show the company's involvement in a secret government electronic surveillance program. - San Francisco Chronicle (via DKos)posted by mr.curmudgeon at 10:47 AM on May 17, 2006

I hate to say it, but Wired is risking relevance again, here. Where will I go for absolutely non-essential Gear, Stuff, and Technolust?

So what's up with Verizon and BellSouth denying involvement? That's pretty weird.posted by smackfu at 10:51 AM on May 17, 2006

We should start a call tree in which we each discuss this issue, making sure to use terms such as 'al-Queda' and anything else that the wiretap system "tags" on. You call five people, they each call five people, and so on. Imagine the work that make for them!posted by poppo at 10:53 AM on May 17, 2006 [1 favorite]

So what's up with Verizon and BellSouth denying involvement? That's pretty weird.
smackfu

No, Verizon said something along the lines of ' ... we were not under a contract to provide data to the NSA ... '.

It was an basic non-denial denial.

BellSouth said that they were ASKED by the NSA, and they turned the NSA down.

The BellSouth thing has bigger implications that the Verizon non-denial.posted by Relay at 10:57 AM on May 17, 2006

"All things being equal, the simplest explanation is that whatever could go wrong, did."

Brilliant! I am so going to use that.posted by djeo at 10:57 AM on May 17, 2006

Meccability: that's frightening.

Will we have no legal recourse at all? If they can deny it in a lawsuit, what can a citizen do?posted by sonofsamiam at 11:03 AM on May 17, 2006

smackfu,
Refer to meccabilly's link regarding the President telling the telcos that it's OK to lie about this. Dear Leader knows best. All hail Dear Leader!posted by nofundy at 11:06 AM on May 17, 2006

And incrementally, the cloak is thrown over their actions and our liberties are sacrificed. They're scarcely trying to hide it now. That worries me.posted by SaintCynr at 11:21 AM on May 17, 2006

They are behaving as if they already know the outcome of the '06 and '08 elections.posted by mr.curmudgeon at 11:25 AM on May 17, 2006

To me mr.curmudgeon it looks like they know the end is nigh, and they're just flailing to beat the band.

It's really reminiscent of the Nixon/Agnew Untergangposted by Relay at 11:32 AM on May 17, 2006

"All things being equal, the simplest explanation is that whatever could go wrong, did."

Marked as a favorite.

Now we can have a MeTa thread about "If you mark something as a favorite, is it REALLY NECESSARY to also enter a comment that you marked it as a favorite?" Go on. You know you want to.posted by George_Spiggott at 12:07 PM on May 17, 2006

...The Electronic Freedom Foundation is suing AT&T...

It's actually the Electronic Frontier Foundationposted by delmoi at 12:24 PM on May 17, 2006

curmudgeon:They are behaving as if they already know the outcome of the '06 and '08 elections.

Some of us here even stake our careers on Wired risking relevance. I risk it myself in an article in our next issue. :)posted by digaman at 1:59 PM on May 17, 2006

They are behaving as if they already know the outcome of the '06 and '08 elections.
posted by mr.curmudgeon

And we keep acting as if Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 were just abberations.posted by any major dude at 2:16 PM on May 17, 2006

Digaman, you said in a previous thread you saw Janis Joplin play live. Are you sure it's relevance you're risking and not, say, a broken hip?

That said - there's usually at least one article worth a read in Wired so long as it's online and free. Don't know if I'd pay money for it. Which is to say, based on the past 10 years, I do know, and I wouldn't. Too much of the glossy, expensive advertorial for my delicate sensibilities.posted by Sparx at 3:36 PM on May 17, 2006

Gee thanks, sparx. Still in high school, I take it?

For the $12 a year deal that's available everywhere, Wired costs $1 an issue. That doesn't seem exorbitant to me, and you get to read the articles a couple of weeks before they appear online for free. I often prefer reading long feature articles on paper, but that might be because the kindly nurse at the home has a hard time wedging the monitor between my bifocals and my iron lung.

And so it is. Sorry about that.posted by Sparx at 4:38 PM on May 17, 2006

No problem, and thanks. I was in 6th grade when I sat in the stands at Shea Stadium in NYC watching Janis' second-to-last-ever show. I probably didn't realize the magnitude of what I was seeing, but at least I enjoyed it. I remember that some guy kept yelling "Piece of My Ass!" between songs. 'Twas ever thus.posted by digaman at 5:01 PM on May 17, 2006

Does Wired still use ... odd colors for fonts and backgrounds in the print edition? I found it hard to read a lot of the time when I had a subscription (back last century). Some of the combinations they chose were downright ghastly and ugly, not to mention hard to discern.posted by beth at 7:25 PM on May 17, 2006

No, that changed about six or seven years ago. I miss the boldness of the old Wired style personally, but so many people offered feedback like yours, it was clear that most of our readers preferred more standard use of fonts and colors.

We just hired a new creative director (designer, essentially) who seems to be very smart, so he may take the magazine off in some new directions visually. I don't think the design has been great for the last year or so, so that's good news.posted by digaman at 5:31 AM on May 18, 2006

Sources say project was shelved in part because of bureaucratic infighting

By Siobhan Gorman
Sun Reporter

May 17, 2006, 10:27 PM EDT

WASHINGTON -- The National Security Agency developed a pilot program in the late 1990s that would have enabled it to gather and analyze massive amounts of communications data without running afoul of privacy laws. But after the Sept. 11 attacks, it shelved the project -- not because it failed to work -- but because of bureaucratic infighting and a sudden White House expansion of the agency's surveillance powers, according to several intelligence officials.

The agency opted instead to adopt only one component of the program, which produced a far less capable and rigorous program. It remains the backbone of the NSA's warrantless surveillance efforts, tracking domestic and overseas communications from a vast databank of information, and monitoring selected calls.
[...]posted by digaman at 5:35 AM on May 18, 2006

...stake our careers on Wired risking relevance. I risk it myself in an article in our next issue.

Yeah, well... you don't need to be relevant to make a living. I'm a philosopher, for god's sake! :-)

Seriously, though, I loved the nineties Wired [had a friend there at the time], but the signal/noise ratio has gradually risen throughout the last few years. That's not so bad: at least there's still signal! It's just not The [New] Economist.posted by anotherpanacea at 3:58 PM on May 18, 2006

Tags

Share

About MetaFilter

MetaFilter is a weblog that anyone can contribute a link or a comment to. A typical weblog is one person posting their thoughts on the unique things they find on the web. This website exists to break down the barriers between people, to extend a weblog beyond just one person, and to foster discussion among its members.